Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[uuuhname]

So, let's go back 1 year. We have a social media site, and it is run by the Trump administration. They have moderation powers, as well as censorship authority to restrict misinformation and fake news.

I don't see many liberals wanting to be on such a site.

omfg with this Trump nonsense again, does the president have any authority over NPR? no? then why would a public video platform be any different? other than that being literally the only excuse you have to justify why it shouldn't exist? some absurd situation you have to make up in order to have any argument against a public good? no seriously this is the same argument that can be made against NPR and it doesn't work that way, so your argument doesn't work, at all!

[Elegiac]

omfg with this Trump nonsense again, does the president have any authority over NPR? no? then why would a public video platform be any different? other than that being literally the only excuse you have to justify why it shouldn't exist? some absurd situation you have to make up in order to have any argument against a public good?

Yeah I remember that time Sesame Street was being used to prop up the Bush administration because PBS. /s

[Edge-]

Yeah I remember that time Sesame Street was being used to prop up the Bush administration because PBS. /s

Hey, we should probably do away with that national emergency text alert system too. I bet Trump could have used that for bad things if he wanted to.

WE MUST GET RID OF LITERALLY EVERYTHING THAT CAN POTENTIALLY BE USED IN BAD FAITH BY A BAD ACTOR! Apparently.

[uuuhname]

Yeah I remember that time Sesame Street was being used to prop up the Bush administration because PBS. /s

exactly, just ignore reality and substitute your own...

[Elegiac]

Hey, we should probably do away with that national emergency text alert system too. I bet Trump could have used that for bad things if he wanted to.

Thanks, Cricket Wireless.

[Shadowferal]

Those "Amber alerts" would take a different context if run by a company led by the likes of Matt Gaetz.

[Machismo]

1) Facebook is not a person and should not have rights. I don't believe in corporate personhood.
2) You do not have a right to have your voice artificially amplified by technology, point in fact. Freedom of speech is not entitlement to reach.

Companies still have rights, because they are led by people.

Business owners also deserve rights.

The issue is that it's their private property, and their megaphone. You want to take over that megaphone, so their rights would be impacted.

- - - Updated - - -

No one cares what it's called, honestly.

The important thing is whether or not the market services the needs of the public. A more dynamic and competitive market does that better than one controlled by a Greyhound bus of monopolies and oligarchies like the one you're advocating.

It is servicing the needs of the public, and more than a hundred million Americans agree, because they use it.

- - - Updated - - -

Cool, we're talking about federal legislation. Sit down.

So, cite the legislation.

It's your argument, so let's see it.

Or, is this another case of you wanting to ignore evidence, whilst providing none of your own?

- - - Updated - - -

omfg with this Trump nonsense again, does the president have any authority over NPR? no? then why would a public video platform be any different? other than that being literally the only excuse you have to justify why it shouldn't exist? some absurd situation you have to make up in order to have any argument against a public good? no seriously this is the same argument that can be made against NPR and it doesn't work that way, so your argument doesn't work, at all!

You said you wanted the government to nationalize all of them. So, this isn't like NPR, because you have specifically said you want the government to control speech.

It's not an absurd situation, it's going by the timeline of this article, and your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I remember that time Sesame Street was being used to prop up the Bush administration because PBS. /s

Pravda would like to have a chat.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, we should probably do away with that national emergency text alert system too. I bet Trump could have used that for bad things if he wanted to.

WE MUST GET RID OF LITERALLY EVERYTHING THAT CAN POTENTIALLY BE USED IN BAD FAITH BY A BAD ACTOR! Apparently.

Except, he literally called for the government to restrict the speech on those platforms.

[Elegiac]

Companies still have rights, because they are led by people.

The owners might have rights; the company itself should not be regarded as a person.

Pravda would like to have a chat.

I talked to it and it said it wanted you to stop using in shitty talking points like insinuating that anything that has a potential for abuse needs to be gotten rid of. Rofl.

Except, he literally called for the government to restrict the speech on those platforms.

Except, you've yet to demonstrate how this actually prevents people from exercising their speech.

Speech =/= reach. You've no right to the latter, or else banning people from forums wouldn't be permissible.

Or, is this another case of you wanting to ignore evidence, whilst providing none of your own?

So, were you high or drunk during the several pages wherein Falwell v. Hustler and the corpus of law surrounding free speech at the federal level was brought up?

You've been provided the evidence. Not our fault you can't anything argue without moving the goalposts constantly, like switching between "government run websites" and "government run social media/video sharing" depending on which is more convenient.

[Machismo]

The owners might have rights; the company itself should not be regarded as a person.



I talked to it and it said it wanted you to stop using in shitty talking points like insinuating that anything that has a potential for abuse needs to be gotten rid of. Rofl.



Except, you've yet to demonstrate how this actually prevents people from exercising their speech.

Speech =/= reach. You've no right to the latter, or else banning people from forums wouldn't be permissible.



So, were you high or drunk during the several pages wherein Falwell v. Hustler and the corpus of law surrounding free speech at the federal level was brought up?

You've been provided the evidence. Not our fault you can't anything argue without moving the goalposts constantly, like switching between "government run websites" and "government run social media/video sharing" depending on which is more convenient.

They have rights, the Supreme Court has ruled on this, and that's not going to change. They have rights, because business owners have rights.

You want the government to restrict speech, this has been made clear. So, it's not an issue of NPR, because you want the government to control the speech.

I have literally pointed it out, numerous times. The goal is to punish people for telling the literal and objective truth.

I never did get that federal law from you. Have you found it, yet? You bitched that I provided the California law, saying it's federal, so what law, exactly?

If you cannot provide the law, I'll assume you have no idea, and we can move past it.

[uuuhname]

because you have specifically said you want the government to control speech.

so we're reduced to out right lying now? that's how you think you "win" this discussion? you're pathetic...

[Elegiac]

They have rights

Which they should not. Sorry you have problems with is versus ought arguments.

You want the government to restrict speech, this has been made clear.

Speech =/= reach. The restrictions are on the latter, not the former.

I never did get that federal law from you.

Imagine not knowing what Common Law is.

so we're reduced to out right lying now? that's how you think you "win" this discussion? you're pathetic...

It's actually really funny that he thinks what is effectively a spam filter is "controlling people's speech", truth be told. To say nothing of having to reach down to state level legislation in order to avoid being entirely full of shit.

I'm looking forward to more scintillating takes like "website moderation is prohibited by the First Amendment" or trying to claim common law isn't a thing not one post after claiming that business owners have rights because the judiciary said so.

Complete and utter lack of imagination.

[Machismo]

Which they should not. Sorry you have problems with is versus ought arguments.



Speech =/= reach. The restrictions are on the latter, not the former.



Imagine not knowing what Common Law is.



It's actually really funny that he thinks what is effectively a spam filter is "controlling people's speech", truth be told. To say nothing of having to reach down to state level legislation in order to avoid being entirely full of shit.

I'm looking forward to more scintillating takes like "website moderation is prohibited by the First Amendment" or trying to claim common law isn't a thing not one post after claiming that business owners have rights because the judiciary said so.

Complete and utter lack of imagination.

Once again, you can say they should not, but not only should they, that's not going to change. We have SCOTUS precedent on that, and I know you're a fan of such things.

the restrictions are not just on the latter, because people are calling on silencing and banning misinformation. It's their property, and it's their speech. If they want reach, and the government is trying to stop it, that is an infringement on their speech.

The precedent is on my side. Literally both of your rulings were in favor of protecting speech...

So, Citizens United, among others would disagree with your "common law" argument. You don't get to whine about precedent, when that is your argument.

[Elegiac]

Once again, you can say they should not, but not only should they, that's not going to change. We have SCOTUS precedent on that, and I know you're a fan of such things.

Then why on Earth are you whinging about a lack of evidence.

the restrictions are not just on the latter, because people are calling on silencing and banning misinformation.

Oh, so you admit you were lying when you said I was asking the government to "control speech", huh? Lol.

It's their property, and it's their speech.

Okay, and?

If they want reach, and the government is trying to stop it, that is an infringement on their speech.

Nah, it's not, or else website moderation or filtering spam wouldn't be legally permissible. You're not asking for speech, you're asking to be entitled to an audience.

The precedent is on my side. Literally both of your rulings were in favor of protecting speech...

Thus admitting that cutting down on misinformation is not incompatible with free speech, as the Hustler v. Falwell ruling was fairly explicit about.

So, Citizens United, among others would disagree with your "common law" argument.

Citizens United existing does not make common law not a thing, so not sure why you're saying this.

You asked me what the law is, that does not mean it ought not to be changed.

[Endus]

You want the government to restrict speech, this has been made clear. So, it's not an issue of NPR, because you want the government to control the speech.

The government already restricts plenty of forms of speech.

Again, see child pornography for an example that nobody but pedophiles thinks should be uncensored and free to express.

I have literally pointed it out, numerous times. The goal is to punish people for telling the literal and objective truth.

No, the goal is to penalize/remove misinformation projects.

If you can't tell the difference, that's a you problem.

[Machismo]

Then why on Earth are you whinging about a lack of evidence.



Oh, so you admit you were lying when you said I was asking the government to "control speech", huh? Lol.



Okay, and?



Nah, it's not, or else website moderation or filtering spam wouldn't be legally permissible. You're not asking for speech, you're asking to be entitled to an audience.



Thus admitting that cutting down on misinformation is not incompatible with free speech, as the Hustler v. Falwell ruling was fairly explicit about.



Citizens United existing does not make common law not a thing, so not sure why you're saying this.

You asked me what the law is, that does not mean it ought not to be changed.

Nope, that's exactly what you want, the government to control speech. If your ownly argument is tat you don'[t want to restrict speech, only the volume, that's a terrible argument.

Umm, you seem to be mixing private and government.

Section 230 protects those sites. They can be as big of a microphone as they want, and they are free from liability from the government. The First Amendment also protects that right.

Once again, if your argument is "common law," then you have to recognize that companies like Facebook have rights. You can claim they "ought" not to, but that is an argument against your own "common law" stance.

[Elegiac]

The government already restricts plenty of forms of speech.

Again, see child pornography for an example that nobody but pedophiles thinks should be uncensored and free to express.

No, the goal is to penalize/remove misinformation projects.

If you can't tell the difference, that's a you problem.

Very strongly reminded of the times we had to repeatedly remind Trump voters that being banned from MMO-C is not in fact a First Amendment violation, truth be told.

[Machismo]

The government already restricts plenty of forms of speech.

Again, see child pornography for an example that nobody but pedophiles thinks should be uncensored and free to express.



No, the goal is to penalize/remove misinformation projects.

If you can't tell the difference, that's a you problem.

I never said they don't restrict speech, you are beating a dead straw man.

Except, this would mean punishing the literal and objective truth. So, we both agree libel laws will not cut it.

We also agree that corporations have the First Amendment rights.

So, the only way to do this, would be new legislation, which would not only be nearly impossible to pass, would have to dramatically impact the First Amendment rights of those social media companies, as well as those pushing that misinformation. Any law would be immediately challenged, and rightfully so.

- - - Updated - - -

Very strongly reminded of the times we had to repeatedly remind Trump voters that being banned from MMO-C is not in fact a First Amendment violation, truth be told.

This isn't MMO-C, this is the United States Government doing it.

That's why it becomes a First Amendment issue.

[Elegiac]

Nope, that's exactly what you want, the government to control speech. If your ownly argument is tat you don'[t want to restrict speech, only the volume, that's a terrible argument.

"Because you say so" is such a compelling rebuttal, rofl.

Umm, you seem to be mixing private and government.

Oh, okay, so you're totally fine with people being banned for saying true things as long as it's just a private entity doing so.

Section 230 protects those sites. They can be as big of a microphone as they want, and they are free from liability from the government.

Cool: Section 230 does not entitle people to use said microphone, nor is regulating social media holding them liable for offenses on a user's part.

Once again, if your argument is "common law," then you have to recognize that companies like Facebook have rights. You can claim they "ought" not to, but that is an argument against your own "common law" stance.

Arguing that the common law on the subject should be changed is arguing that common law doesn't exist, apparently.

[Machismo]

"Because you say so" is such a compelling rebuttal, rofl.



Oh, okay, so you're totally fine with people being banned for saying true things as long as it's just a private entity doing sp.



Cool: Section 230 does not entitle people to use said microphone, nor is regulating social media holding them liable for offenses on a user's part.



Arguing that the common law on the subject should be changed is arguing that common law doesn't exist, apparently.

A private entity can do what the hell it wants. If they want to ban me for reciting pi, bully for them. They are free to do it, as it is their property, and they have First Amendment rights.

Section 230 entitles internet companies to be that microphone, and makes no mention of how large that microphone is allowed to be. Regulating social media is bringing their First Amendment rights into play.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

I never said common law didn't exist. But, if you ant to go by precedent, you have to accept that your own argument is justification for corporations having First Amendment rights. After all, it is precedent.

[Elegiac]

A private entity can do what the hell it wants. If they want to ban me for reciting pi, bully for them. They are free to do it

Good on you admitting this isn't remotely a function of you caring about anyone's free speech rights but just an extension of the eternal "government bad" crusade. *slow clap*

Section 230 entitles internet companies to be that microphone, and makes no mention of how large that microphone is allowed to be.

Please point me to the part of Section 230 that entitles people to use that microphone.

But, if you ant to go by precedent

"If you like this precedent then you must also like this other one" is some lazy ass arguing on your part.